I just meant that the man would have anticipated the cop's presence and just shot the poor officer in the back before going after the kids. His mother worked at the school, the man had more than enough knowledge of the layout and normal movements.

There is more here to fix than just sticking a cop at the door. Better access to mental health care, better access to employment, to education, building strong community ties in all members, etc. are going to be more effective as preventative measures than simply adding cops, or locking kids down in schools.

The problem with that is you assume so many things. How are you so certain he would have a easy shot at the backside of a cop? What makes you sure those shots kill the cop before he can return fire?"Normal movements" and "cops" don't go togather.Part of his job is to not get complacent and have a routine.

You are smoking crack if you think handing out jobs and diplomas will stop people from going full retard.

Firstly, good luck sneaking up on a cop and shooting the cop in the back (through the vest?). Secondly, no one said that placing a police officer inside of a school is the only measure to be taken. Duh, there are other factors. Duh. How in the hell could it have hurt the situation to have a police officer on duty within that school?

How is having an officer on duty not helping? I get that it's not the only issue. I get that there are lots of other issues. But there are some of these issues that we will never solve. Mental health is not an easy issue. It doesn't have one right way. Throwing more money at it, might help, but it sure as fuck won't solve the problem.

Sometimes ordinarily healthy people snap. They have a complete mental breakdown and do things they never would have done two seconds before. Having better mental health care won't do shit for someone like that. Or for someone who doesn't seek help. SO while it's a worthy pursuit for sure, it isn't going to help in some cases.

Having a police officer on duty at schools, isn't the only thing that should be done. But it would help. I don't think anyone is offering it as the only solution. But it is a part of a solution.

The kid went to the school with a target. Whether he intended on adding to his total or not I couldn't tell you, but he kept killing and it's probably because he was severely fucked in the head. Like stated, he had an inside knowledge of the inner workings of the school. Maybe if he knew there was an armed police officer patrolling the grounds he might have at the very least just killed his target and himself.

"I think of myself as an intelligent, sensitive human being with the soul of a clown which always forces me to blow it at the most important moments." -Jim Morrison

Nick Kristof in today's New York Times offered what seems to me a realistic and balanced proposal for gun reform in the U.S. His basic question is, "Why can’t we regulate guns as seriously as we do cars?"

The second half of his article--what we can actually do--is here:

Nicholas Kristof Wrote:So what can we do? A starting point would be to limit gun purchases to one a month, to curb gun traffickers. Likewise, we should restrict the sale of high-capacity magazines so that a shooter can’t kill as many people without reloading.

We should impose a universal background check for gun buyers, even with private sales. Let’s make serial numbers more difficult to erase, and back California in its effort to require that new handguns imprint a microstamp on each shell so that it can be traced back to a particular gun. . . .

Other countries offer a road map. In Australia in 1996, a mass killing of 35 people galvanized the nation’s conservative prime minister to ban certain rapid-fire long guns. The “national firearms agreement,” as it was known, led to the buyback of 650,000 guns and to tighter rules for licensing and safe storage of those remaining in public hands.

The law did not end gun ownership in Australia. It reduced the number of firearms in private hands by one-fifth, and they were the kinds most likely to be used in mass shootings.

In the 18 years before the law, Australia suffered 13 mass shootings — but not one in the 14 years after the law took full effect. The murder rate with firearms has dropped by more than 40 percent, according to data compiled by the Harvard Injury Control Research Center, and the suicide rate with firearms has dropped by more than half.

Or we can look north to Canada. It now requires a 28-day waiting period to buy a handgun, and it imposes a clever safeguard: gun buyers should have the support of two people vouching for them.

For that matter, we can look for inspiration at our own history on auto safety. As with guns, some auto deaths are caused by people who break laws or behave irresponsibly. But we don’t shrug and say, “Cars don’t kill people, drunks do.”

Instead, we have required seat belts, air bags, child seats and crash safety standards. We have introduced limited licenses for young drivers and tried to curb the use of mobile phones while driving. All this has reduced America’s traffic fatality rate per mile driven by nearly 90 percent since the 1950s.

Some of you are alive today because of those auto safety regulations. And if we don’t treat guns in the same serious way, some of you and some of your children will die because of our failure.

(14-12-2012 02:45 PM)Impulse Wrote: I agree with some level of gun control, but only to a point. I don't see why the average person needs anything more than single shot guns for self-defense, hunting, or otherwise. Eliminating the semi and fully automatics could cut at least down on the carnage in situations like this school shooting. But some people will still get their hands on them so it isn't the cure-all either. And I certainly wouldn't eliminate guns completely because that would just mean only the criminals would have them.

Seriously want to defend yourself with a single shot weapon? When you might miss, or the assailant might keep coming? One bullet doesn't always stop an attacker, one bullet doesn't always kill the bear.

I don't care about hunting. In fact, I hate the so-called sport. But, for those who do like to hunt, what sport is it if it's too easy? The single shot gun should do just fine and should make it more of a sport. What do you think people used to use before there were other guns, even when they had to hunt for food and survival?

As for defending myself, I have no problem with a single shot gun. If you can't aim or you don't know the effective spots to aim for, you shouldn't be using a gun in the first place.

(14-12-2012 10:30 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: All I can wonder about that is... once guns are gone and mentally disturbed youths turn to homemade explosives learned on youtube, killing more kids than they ever could with guns... will there be an outcry for "more bomb control laws?" This kid killed his mother, walked into a school with 3 guns, and killed 20+ people. All of these actions are illegal. Should we make them "more illegal"?

Stop focusing on the weapon of choice and start focusing on the cause.

No, you are wrong. The difference is how easy it is to get the weapon. Anybody with a legal age in America can walk into a gun shop to buy a gun, then go murder children. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a lot harder for a madman to go and make his own bombs. To gather the materials, and assemble it. Not to mention it mightn't even work, and where would be figure out how to do it anyway. You say there are videos on how to make a bomb on YouTube?? I call bullshit.

(14-12-2012 10:50 PM)Xinoftruden Wrote: But thats the point Buddy, we cannot face the cause nor do we fully know it. What exactly is the tipping point for someone. Right now we blane guns because it's easier than facing the actual reason. The people who are willing to help are few and far. I personnally would do anything to help one of these people out, but I don't know who they are or posses the resources to help them. and it hurts, badly, I don't want to go on when I hear stories like this. I may joke, but that's just me trying to fight off the pain.

People are wildly pointing at anything for the cause. If violent video games, divorce, lack of gods, or guns themselves were the cause, then nerds, 3/4ths the population, atheists, and NRA members and rednecks everywhere would be dying in record numbers. No one seems to care about the why, just the who. "Who can I blame?" Was this kid (he was 20, not even old enough to drink, so he was a kid to me) bullied in school? Why did he seem to target the authority figures in his life? He was most likely just mentally unhinged. Not crazy, mind you. He had enough wits to wear a bulletproof vest and the guilt to kill himself when he was done... so certainly not crazy.

Also, why do people seem to prefer schools to do their shootings? Because they are tightly packed with targets, have very few escape routes (maybe each school room should have a fire exit door), and are the least likely place to find armed resistance. So my first thought would be to ensure that each school has a few security guards and maybe a few guns in a lock box somewhere. At least have the teachers all have access to panic buttons or something. The gas station near my house has a cop hanging out in it every night due to the high robbery rate. Can't we do the same with our schools?

I don't agree that no one is asking why. Yes, there are some opportunists who piggy-back on these incidents and certainly focus on the wrong things - e.g., those pushing for gun control. However, there are plenty of people asking why. The answer is difficult, however, when almost always these shooters commit suicide and so we can't ask them.

In addition, I don't agree that school are the preference. There have been mall, work place, and theater shootings as well. Typically, when it's a school, it's a student doing the shooting and that's why the school is chosen. This one is an exception (although the details aren't complete and this 20 year old isn't long out of school).

(14-12-2012 10:30 PM)Buddy Christ Wrote: All I can wonder about that is... once guns are gone and mentally disturbed youths turn to homemade explosives learned on youtube, killing more kids than they ever could with guns... will there be an outcry for "more bomb control laws?" This kid killed his mother, walked into a school with 3 guns, and killed 20+ people. All of these actions are illegal. Should we make them "more illegal"?

Stop focusing on the weapon of choice and start focusing on the cause.

No, you are wrong. The difference is how easy it is to get the weapon. Anybody with a legal age in America can walk into a gun shop to buy a gun, then go murder children. I'm pretty sure it's gonna be a lot harder for a madman to go and make his own bombs. To gather the materials, and assemble it. Not to mention it mightn't even work, and where would be figure out how to do it anyway. You say there are videos on how to make a bomb on YouTube?? I call bullshit.

How easy it is to get a gun is only one small part of the problem. Buddy Christ is correct that, if a gun isn't available to someone with a mind to do a mass killing, they will find another way. I think it's still important to address the gun issues, but that's a long way from resolving this problem. And, by the way, making a bomb is quite easy. A kid in my high school did just that and got into serious trouble for blowing up a structure on a golf course. That was before the internet even existed. It's even easier now.